MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400415170 · doi:10.17816/acen.1087

Functional MRI-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive impairment in cerebral small vessel disease

2024· article· en· W4400415170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dmitry Yu. Lagoda, Ilya S. Bakulin, Alexandra G. Poydasheva, Dmitry O. Sinitsyn, A. Kh. Zabirova, Zukhra Sh. Gadzhieva, Maryam R. Zabitova, Кamila V. Shamtieva, Л А Добрынина, Н. А. Супонева, М. А. Пирадов

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationMedicineCognitive impairmentMagnetic resonance imagingNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStimulationDiseaseCardiologyPsychologyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) is one of the leading causes of vascular and mixed cognitive impairment (CI). Treatment options for CSVD-associated CI are limited. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising non-drug treatment option. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of 10 rTMS sessions of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) on cognitive functions in CSVD patients. Materials and methods. The study included 30 patients with CSVD and moderate CI randomized to the active (DLPFC stimulation; n = 20) and control (vertex stimulation; n = 10) groups. Both groups received 10 sessions of high-frequency rTMS. The DLPFC target was selected based on the individual paradigm fMRI data with a focus on executive functions. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA), the Trail Making Test (TMT), the Tower of London Test, and the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test before, immediately after, and 3 months after the stimulation. Adverse events were assessed using standardized questionnaires. Results. The active group showed a significantly better effect compared to the control group according to MoCA, TMT A and B, The Tower of London Test, delayed recall on the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test immediately after the stimulation and MoCA, TMT A and B and The Tower of London 3 months after the stimulation. Adverse events in the study were mild and did not affect treatment adherence. Conclusion. rTMS is a promising, safe, and well-tolerated treatment option for mild cognitive impairment in CSVD. However, additional research is needed to make recommendations for its clinical use.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Clinical and Experimental NeurologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207